Why are we still digging up roads to lay new cables?

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › Why are we still digging up roads to lay new cables?

Frittmann

65 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 1
Inactive user

#97971 22-Feb-2012 11:57

crackrdbycracku: I get it. Laying new cable means digging up streets and roads, this cost massive amounts of money and the NZ market is small so making that money back takes a long time.

This quote from the Fry for better broadband, any time now... thread got me to thinking. Why are we still digging up roads to lay cables? I was under the impression that cables run through ducting. In the past, NZ Postal & Telegraph, then Telecom, and now Chorus, have laid the ducting infrastructure with sufficient overcapacity to add extra cables without the need to dig new trenches. Is this not the case? Also, the fibre-optic cabling being installed these days should be replacing the old copper cables anyway, providing additional bandwidth. and freeing up ducts that were carrying the older copper cables.

Just to clarify, I used to be a cable-jointer for Telecom back in the 80's, so I understand a bit about how the infrastructure works. I've been out of the telecommunications industry for a good 30 years now, but surely the overcapacity of the ducting hasn't all dwindled in that time, has it?

stevenz

2802 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 125

#585106 22-Feb-2012 12:05

Probably due to the inability of different agencies to communicate with each-other.

I watched someone locally putting some new cabling in (CityLink IIRC) and there was still some digging involved, but they were shoving a mighty long pipe into the system which they were dealing with in another hole about 30m down the road. So at least they weren't ripping up the whole road.

Not sure if cable installation is related to why Willis St in Wellington has been in various states of unearthedness for the past year, or if they can't get their act together to do everything at once (curbing, water, cabling etc). Wouldn't surprise me if it's a "do a quick job for the RWC and then do it properly afterwards" routine.

When the city wasn't initially designed with adequate room to work under the road, retrofitting it later is a bit of a major.

@KnightNZ

Beccara

1473 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 517

ID Verified

#585107 22-Feb-2012 12:07

Duct's also dont normally go where you need them in UFB setups

Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

Frittmann

65 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 1
Inactive user

#585124 22-Feb-2012 12:29

Beccara: Duct's also dont normally go where you need them in UFB setups

Does UFB not terminate at the cabinet? Sure, laying fibre cable to replace the old copper RLG's on the D-side of a cabinet will no doubt require some new trenching work to be done at individual street level. Does UFB require a single, uninterrupted link from the cabinet to the subscriber's premise? If so, then I can understand the need for new trenching. My understanding of the copper network is perhaps not able to map directly to the new technologies. With copper, it used to be thus...

Exchange -> Cabinet E-side -> Cabinet D-side -> RLG (street-side cable) -> Customer's premises

...with each arrow being a join or a jumper. Sorry if my understanding is outdated, as I say, I haven't been in the telecommunications industry for over 30 years now.

cyril7

9073 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2499

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#585127 22-Feb-2012 12:35

Hi, the UFB is being beployed (well in Chorus areas ) using blown fibre, therefore a microduct is delivered via new microduct feeders down the street, so in reality a totally parallel system other than purhaps the existing leadin conduit in which a microduct will be pulled so the fibre can be blown in when needed.

Cyril

Frittmann

65 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 1
Inactive user

#585132 22-Feb-2012 12:46

cyril7: so in reality a totally parallel system

Ah, thanks for that Cyril. So the fibre runs parallel to the RLG, from the Cabinet directly to each individual subscriber's premise. That part would, no doubt, require new trenching, yeah. But the E-side cables should surely travel through existing duct works, shouldn't they? What progress has there been nationwide on upgrading cabinets to fibre? Again, sorry for my lack of knowledge; think of me as having just emerged from a time-capsule that was buried during the 80's. :-)

cyril7

9073 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2499

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#585140 22-Feb-2012 12:53

Hi, I think you will find that existing crossconnect cabinets will remain as they are and a totally new fibre network established. From my observation the FTTN upgrade that recently completed has included the build of a significant level of ducted fibre to those cabinets, I suggest these ducts (and spare fibre) will be used to distribute out to new fibre cabinets (ie pon splitter points) where appropriate.

It seems that the FTTN cabinets themselves where existing are not used to house fibre splitters or other passive (or active) components but rather new small cabinets are installed aside the FTTN whisper cabinets to keep the two networks seperate, naturally they will both be using the same pit adjacent where appropriate.

Dont forget that the copper network is not being disbanded where fibre is installed, there is no compulsion for people to move to a fibre network, well at least till its not economic to continue to maintain copper services. Therefore they really are totally seperate parallel systems.

Cyril

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

Frittmann

65 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 1
Inactive user

#585146 22-Feb-2012 13:16

Aha, and installing the active components to link the fibre E-side cables to the copper D-side cables at the cabinet would be too expensive, necessitating a replacement of the cabinet anyway. Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation.